Renewables to Rival Coal for Power Generation in 2035

Renewable energy is set to rival coal as the main generator of the world’s electricity by 2035 as the costs of technology fall and subsidies rise, the International Energy Agency said.

Wind farms, solar parks and hydroelectric dams are forecast to become the second biggest power generator in 2015 and rise to almost a third of all generation in 2035, a level approaching that of coal, the Paris-based agency that advises 28 nations on energy policy said today in its annual outlook.

<snip>

By 2017, all the allowable emissions will be locked in if no action is taken to slash carbon dioxide, the IEA said. The world could postpone that lock-in by five years to 2022 through the “rapid deployment” of energy-efficient technologies, it said. That would buy time to secure a global agreement to slash greenhouse gases, according to the agency.

<snip>

Investment of $11.8 trillion in existing energy-efficient technologies could be more than offset by reduced need for spending on fuel, and could help boost cumulative global economic output over that period by $18 trillion, the IEA said.

The global energy map is changing “in dramatic fashion”, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said today, as it launched the 2012 edition of its World Energy Outlook.

While it's America’s push on oil and gas production, rather than renewable energy, making the most impact globally, the agency predicts that renewables will become the world's second-largest source of power generation by 2015 and close in on coal as the primary source by 2035.

<snip>

Greenpeace quickly picked up on the fact that the IEA’s forecast “shows more work needed to avoid catastrophic climate change”. Government ambition on developing renewable energy is “seriously inadequate” to meet their promises to hold the average global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, said Sven Teske, energy campaigner with Greenpeace International.

“Renewable energy must grow to 65% of electricity production and energy efficiency must increase by 2035 to reduce the impact of climate change. Otherwise, based on this forecast, the world is still headed for a catastrophic temperature increase of 4 to 6 degrees Celsius,” he said.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) today implored policy-makers to focus on energy efficiency measures, to buy a little time before the world resigns itself to global warming of more than 2 °C.

Presenting the agency’s 2012 World Energy Outlook in London, the IEA’s chief economist Fatih Birol told reporters that he could see a “growing momentum in many countries to push the energy efficiency button”, but also that energy efficiency remained an “epic failure” in most nations’ energy policies. “The chances are slimmer and slimmer of avoiding a 2 °C rise,” he said. The IEA likes to talk about the time when existing factories, buildings and cars will ‘lock in’ greenhouse gas emissions that will push atmospheric carbon dioxide above 450 parts per million, the target thought to give an even chance of limiting global warming to 2 °C. Last year, it projected that time would come by 2017. Today, the agency said that energy efficiency measures could push the lock-in date out five years to 2022.

<snip>

Asked why nations were not concentrating on energy efficiency, Birol said it was because governments were not sufficiently organized to push these policies. Energy ministries were often left to tackle the problem alone; but they needed to work together with policy-makers in the areas of finance, construction, industry and transport, he said. “Climate change is slipping down the agenda, and the costs of inaction are rising,” he added.

<snip>

But Birol, keen to concentrate on energy efficiency, pointed out that America’s increasing oil independence was not just because of its greater production of unconventional oil. Almost 45% of the nation’s projected drop in oil imports would come down to new automobile efficiency standards announced by president Barack Obama last year, he said.

3. IEA cuts global forecast for growth in nuclear capacity

The International Energy Agency has cut its 2011 projections for growth in installed nuclear power capacity by 10% to 580 gigawatts in 2035 in its latest World Energy Outlook issued Monday, Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based agency told a news conference in London to present the report.

In aggregate, world nuclear capacity in the WEO's New Policies Scenario is about 50 GW lower than last year's prediction, Birol said.

At the start of 2011, a total of 30 countries operated 441 nuclear reactors, with a gross installed capacity of 393 GW, 83% of which is in OECD countries, according to the WEO.

<snip>

Correspondingly, the share of nuclear power in total generation falls to 12% from 13%, it said.

Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking.

"That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,'' Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. "I'm confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.''

7. Wow - thanks for that article.

Mr de Boer, who is now special global advisor on climate change for KPMG, said the best prospect may be for nations to settle on targets that they write into their national laws, rather than a binding international deal.

The latter would be "almost impossible to get through the US Senate", he said, no matter whether incumbent Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney wins the US presidential election.

8. Germany is shutting down ALL their nuke plants.......

...and have already demonstrated that they can generate more than 50% of their power requirements with just solar. So much so that earlier this year they had to sell their excess to other countries. Link

There is several potential problems with the expectations set forth in that summary:

1. OPEC is expected to increase is share of total oil production from 42% to 50%, mostly in the increase production of Iraq. This is to offset expected drops in Russian and Mexican oil production (Which is NOT reported in the Summary, but is expected from other sources).

2. Oil prices will be $125/barrel (in year-2011 dollars) in 2035 (over $215/barrel in nominal terms). That is a quote from the Summary, I have no idea what they think the price of oil will be, but I have my fears. Present price is $105.21 a barrel as set by OPEC, $85.47 a barrel as priced by WTI, $109.87 for Brent. All of these prices may be compatible, for the price of oil depends on the ease it is to refine. The more it costs to refine, the cheaper the price of that oil ("Heavy, Sour" oil is closer to the $85 price, while "Light Sweet" oil" tends to the price of Brent. OPEC is a "base" price that the various OPEC members price there oil on.

Given that almost all of the new oil putting into production is "Heavy, Sour" oil and that will become the price base as we switch from using mostly "Light, Sweet" oil to "Heavy, Sour" oil, expect a substantial increase in the price of gasoline and Diesel at the pump. In simple terms look to $5 to $10 a gallon gasoline (and I lean to $10 a gallon). That brings me to the third problem:

3. The report expect a substantial increase in fuel efficiency in the US, i.e. the US switch to Hybrids using lightweight materials to reduce the weight of the Vehicle and thus producing a 50-100 mpg car. The Summary only mention Increase fuel Efficiency, but hybrids and light weight material is the only way to achieve that and both come at a substantial increase in the price of a vehicle.

THe US is no longer the #1 buyers of New cars, China is, but the US has a lot more cars given its much longer history of buying cars. The Average American car stays on the road 10-15 years, but through 3-4 owners. The 10-15 year cars tends to be purchased by the low income group to be used to get to their jobs in the suburbs. How can you improve the fuel efficiency of the cars used by this group within the next 10 years? The cars they will buy 10 years from now, are the cars being produced today, and for every Hybrid being produced you have 5-10 non-hybrids. In simple terms I do NOT see that economic group buying a Hybrid, for they will be out bid for them by other groups, thus must use conventional cars. If the hybrids were the majority of cars being sold today, it might be possible, but while Hybrids are what is bring people into the show room, most car buyers are leaving with something else. I just do NOT see the increase in Fuel Economy reaching the lowest economic levels, and without them how do you get the Cashiers to the Stores people want to go to, and do you get the Janitorial workers to clean those same businesses?

I would like to think this is American Wishful thinking but the IEA is Paris France based, so it may be European wishful thinking, for Europeans just assume the US mass transit system is as good as it is in Europe and it is no where close.

4. The Summary does NOT mention it, but by mentioning $250 a Barrel oil prices, that means Oil-Shale production in the US. At $250 a barrel, oil shale can be profitable (mostly due to oil being used to propel vehicles, while Nuclear energy is used to mine and process the Shale to produce the Oil). Canadian Oil Shale is profitable at the present time, for it has the greatest amount of energy (even Oil engineers are reluctant to call shale oil, oil, for the simple reason it is better looked at a pre-oil, something that is mined and then processed into oil). US Shale oil has less energy in the shale, but if another source of energy can be provided, the shale-oil can be mined and made into oil (Thus the idea of building nuclear plants to provide the needed energy). US Shale oil is close to the point where the energy used to produced the oil equals the oil produced. If that energy input can be reduced OR provided by another form of energy so that the entire Energy input into Shale Oil to become oil, is otherwise cost efficiency (Oil is a better compact fuel for vehicles then batteries or other electrical shortage devices), then even if excess energy is used to produced the oil, the cost advantage of having a source of oil may justify the energy input. The problem then is we have a very expensive fuel. $10 a gallon plus.

5. IEA expects world wide Hydro electrical production to double by 2050, supplying some of the power presently supplied by oil.

6. Some how US and China Coal use will peak and decline after 2020, while India's increase till 2035, when it peaks and declines. Then it points out this is uncertain. i.e. your guess is as good as they's.

I am sorry, the summary says enough to scare me, the future it predicts depends on to many ifs, Iraq becomes the #2 oil producer, replacing Russia and Saudi Arabia, The US become #1 oil producer, and I suspect that means Shale oil, that people will be willing and able to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline (and I do NOT mean the middle class, I mean the working poor), and somehow the working poor can buy a hybrid, that costs more then they make.